Streeck lambasts modern capitalism for the greed and corruption that has become associated with it. Streeck argues that “finance is an ‘industry’ where innovation is hard to distinguish from rule-bending or rule-breaking; where the payoffs from semi-legal and illegal activities are particularly high” (Streeck 61). These capitalist entities, “too big to jail” (Streeck 61), have morally decayed beyond repair. According to Streeck, this will result in cynicism of capitalism. Streeck’s vision hasn’t come to fruition. Yet this is flawed for two reasons - first, those in capitalist countries still support capitalism, and second, the economic consequences of corruption are far greater, but also fixable.
A May 2016 poll, conducted in the midst of …show more content…
It is nearly unanimous consensus that economic inequality is indeed a problem. Everyone from Theresa May to Bernie Sanders has made tackling inequality an important priority. Because of this, Streeck’s portrayal of unchecked inequality doesn’t make sense, and it’s likely that governments will make reforms to reduce inequality. Additionally, there’s historical precedence for a decline in inequality. Mexico’s Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality of a nation, declined a percent from 2000 to 2006 (Lopez-Calva). Mexico didn’t instill socialist reforms to intentionally achieve this, to the contrary actually moving towards market-oriented reforms in the decade prior. While Mexico’s Gini coefficient was 54.3 in 1994, it stands today at 48.21 (World Bank). By blending capitalism with complementary social reforms such as raising the minimum wage, increasing financial literacy, or improving education and educational opportunities, economic inequality can …show more content…
To underscore this, Streeck points to the decline of the United States in the economic and military spheres, and the lack of a rising dominant power in these spheres to take its place. Once again, Streeck is not wrong in his analysis of America, something furthered by the election of Donald Trump, but his conclusion about the effect of this is off the mark. Capitalism no longer needs a powerhouse to back it, but rather than survive and prosper via a coalition of militarily and economically sound countries. NATO and the European Union provide examples of this, countries with mutual interests. While the election of Trump and Brexit seem to have thrown these relations into chaos, there is still clear standing in the world among global powers. Why have a “global banker of last resort” (Streeck 62), when you can have global bankers of last resort. Streeck speaks of a military power needed to “restore global order” (Streeck 62), however no such power truly ever existed, hence the immense coalition needed in World War I and
A May 2016 poll, conducted in the midst of …show more content…
It is nearly unanimous consensus that economic inequality is indeed a problem. Everyone from Theresa May to Bernie Sanders has made tackling inequality an important priority. Because of this, Streeck’s portrayal of unchecked inequality doesn’t make sense, and it’s likely that governments will make reforms to reduce inequality. Additionally, there’s historical precedence for a decline in inequality. Mexico’s Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality of a nation, declined a percent from 2000 to 2006 (Lopez-Calva). Mexico didn’t instill socialist reforms to intentionally achieve this, to the contrary actually moving towards market-oriented reforms in the decade prior. While Mexico’s Gini coefficient was 54.3 in 1994, it stands today at 48.21 (World Bank). By blending capitalism with complementary social reforms such as raising the minimum wage, increasing financial literacy, or improving education and educational opportunities, economic inequality can …show more content…
To underscore this, Streeck points to the decline of the United States in the economic and military spheres, and the lack of a rising dominant power in these spheres to take its place. Once again, Streeck is not wrong in his analysis of America, something furthered by the election of Donald Trump, but his conclusion about the effect of this is off the mark. Capitalism no longer needs a powerhouse to back it, but rather than survive and prosper via a coalition of militarily and economically sound countries. NATO and the European Union provide examples of this, countries with mutual interests. While the election of Trump and Brexit seem to have thrown these relations into chaos, there is still clear standing in the world among global powers. Why have a “global banker of last resort” (Streeck 62), when you can have global bankers of last resort. Streeck speaks of a military power needed to “restore global order” (Streeck 62), however no such power truly ever existed, hence the immense coalition needed in World War I and